Awareness of the Evidence for Practice of Registered Massage Therapists in Ontario

Abstract

Background: Evidence-informed practice (EIP) is part of a healthcare ethos, in which practitioners apply evidence together with their expertise contextualized by the unique values of the patient. Studies about EIP focus on attitudes or confidence related to EIP. Individuals’ abilities to assess their own knowledge or performance are low. Therefore, a positive rating of attitude or confidence does not likely portray accurately the EIP knowledge or ability of the practitioner. It was hypothesized that awareness of evidence might be a more accurate measure. Objective: This study sought to understand registered massage therapists’ (RMTs) awareness of the current evidence for practice and to identify sources of information that inform that awareness. Methods: An online questionnaire-based mixed-methods cross-sectional study was conducted. Ontario RMTs were invited to participate. This report focuses on the results of the quantitative analysis. Results: In total, 1,762 questionnaires were included; a 16.9% response rate. The mean awareness score was 9.4 ± 7.2. A multiple regression showed four factors that explained 4% of the variation seen in the awareness score: membership in the professional association (RMTAO), EIP attitude score, post-graduate education, and home-based practice. Of seven sources of information provided, respondents rated cumulative professional experience as most important, followed by recent research studies and education. Cumulative professional experience also rated as most frequently used, followed by other RMTs and education. Conclusions: This study investigated the level of awareness of evidence of RMTs. The results of the awareness score showed opportunity for improvement and require further investigation. Future research should explore other factors, which may show a better model of predictability of the awareness score. It is proposed that awareness of the evidence for practice might be a better predictor of use of evidence in practice than self-reported attitude or capacity but further research is needed.